What Does USTR Have Against The Public Domain? Opposing TPP Provision In Support Of Public Domain
from the for-what-possible-reason? dept
Earlier, we wrote about some of the sections of the leaked IP chapter that KEI leaked yesterday. With the rest of the sections released today, there are some oddities worth calling out. For example, why is the USTR arguing against the public domain? In the section on Internet Service Providers (ISPs), there's a part that lists out what the "parties recognize" the need for, including "promoting innovation and creativity," "facilitating the diffusion of information, knowledge, technology, culture and the arts" and "foster competition and open and efficient markets." Right after that, a few countries suggest "acknowledging the importance of the public domain," and the US and Japan oppose this suggestion:
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: copyright, public domain, tpp, ustr
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Descriptions matter
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Descriptions matter
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Descriptions matter
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Descriptions matter
And copies of public domain material don't just magically fall from the trees, either.
"public domain" just like "copyright" is a national concept of what kind of uses are permitted and prohibited for physically tangible copies of some content. "Ownership" only concerns physical copies. "Public domain" is not "owned by everybody". It is just a list of content I can put on my own media regardless of its origin without becoming liable to prosecution if someone finds out, for example because he buys some media off me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Your chances of getting an answer to that question are about the same as mine in getting an answer to this "What Does Mike Have Against the Rights of Authors?"
Bawk.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Not sure that stealing from the public is exactly a right!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
and I really find it insulting that you would use the 'rights of authors' as a pretext to support your real agenda in favor of the privileges and profits of distributors both at the expense of authors and the public. You don't really care about authors at all and you don't care about democracy and it's of no benefit to your cause to use authors as the poster child for your selfish agenda. No one is fooled as evidence by the fact that you must subvert democracy, through secrecy and buying politicians, to get what you want because these laws would never pass in a more democratic environment. The only thing you're doing is showing everyone how little shame you have and how low you would stoop in your very obvious dishonesty to get what you want. It would be much better for you to just be honest about the fact that you only care about the distributors and have their interests in mind. It's also dishonest of you to keep calling a privilege a 'right'. Again, that only make you look dishonest and foolish. Dishonest because you know better and foolish for thinking that anyone else would confuse the two just because you purposely conflate them. You also look foolish for thinking anyone believes you actually care about authors. Being honest is a much better strategy for you. At least, from there, the roles of distributors and a more appropriate business model for them could be more openly discussed. But claiming that you care about authors is a non-starter because no one is fooled.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why wouldn't the USTR oppose the Public Domain?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Do you really have the spam filter sending comments that include your last name to the moderation queue? Is nobody allowed to say your name without your prior approval?
Insecure much?
I love this place.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
There's a reason why a lot of sites refer to you guys as 'anonymous coward' after all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
and unless people are really so blind, what is going on everywhere? public companies, public owned and run companies are being sold off, even though the people have the biggest stake in something, the governments are ignoring them and selling it anyway. on top of that, 'Police States' are developing everywhere as well, so that they will be able to quell the uprising that will someday happen! and certainly in the USA, officers are not bothered about who, how many or why they shoot and shoot to kill!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
When you see "USTR", read "MafiAA & big Pharma."
I don't think it's even that complicated. The USTR is merely the D.C. branch office of the MPAA and big Pharma.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's simple, really...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Can't we make a Mickey Mouse law?
Can't we change the law to expand trademarks to include mascots, so that Mickey and company never enter the public domain so long as disney is operational, but that the rest of copyright actually has an expiration date?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Can't we make a Mickey Mouse law?
There will be no rest because Disney would pick up everything at bargain price shortly before it would slip into the Public Domain.
You are falling into the Nobel fallacy of presuming there are things people will not do for money and/or power.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The next step will be the loss of the ability to sell what you create when a company with a larger legal army claims that it can make a greater profit than you can.
After that it will take the equivalent of a DMCA take down notice to declare that you have no right to what you created.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
RE_ USTR
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The public, of course
Hint: What does USTR have against the public seeing the TPP wording before it's finalised?
Answer: the public.
Really easy question, when you think about it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]